---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 24:"After Clause 58, insert the following new clause—" ““CAUSING OR PERMITTING CHILD UNDER 14 TO RIDE A CYCLE ON ROAD WITHOUT PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR (1)   Except as provided by regulations, it is an offence for any person to whom this subsection applies to cause or permit a child under the age of 14 years to ride a cycle on a road unless the child is wearing protective headgear, of such description as may be specified in regulations, in such manner as may be so specified. (2)   Subsection (1) above applies to the following persons— (a)   unless the child is cycling in the course of his employment, any person who— (i)   for the purposes of Part I of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12), has responsibility for the child; (ii)   for the purposes of Part II of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c. 37), has parental responsibilities (within the meaning given by section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36)) in relation to, or has charge or care of, the child; (iii)   for the purposes of Article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)), has parental responsibilities in relation to the child; (iv)   in relation to Northern Ireland, has care of the child or is, otherwise than by virtue of Article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, legally obliged to maintain the child; (b)   any person other than a person mentioned in paragraph (a) above who is above the age of 17 years and who has custody of or is in possession of the cycle immediately before the child rides it; (c)   where the child is employed and is cycling in the course of his employment, his employer and any other person to whose orders the child is subject in the course of his employment. (3)   A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale. (4)   In this section— ““regulations”” means regulations under section (Regulations in relation to section (Causing or permitting child under 14 to ride a cycle on road without protective headgear)); and ““road””— (a)   in England and Wales has the meaning given by section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (general interpretation); (b)   in Scotland has the meaning given by section 15(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 54) (emergency work in relation to private roads); and (c)   in Northern Ireland has the meaning given by Article 1(2) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2994 (N.I. 18)).”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25, which is also in my name. These are similar to the amendments that I moved in Committee and Report, but I have altered them in an endeavour to take into account concerns raised by a number of your Lordships at Report. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, did not like the inclusion of,"““tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels””," and I have removed that reference in the amendment, which will I hope make it more acceptable to him. I can quite see his point. My noble friend Lady Hanham, speaking to me outside the Chamber, told me that she did not approve of the possibility of children being liable for a criminal conviction, which was a possibility under my previous amendment. The amendment has been redrafted to take account of that; I am assured by the legal eagles that liability now rests entirely with adults. The Minister has opposed my amendments in Committee and at Report, but seems to have no objection to it being compulsory for children to wear safety helmets when riding ponies or horses on roads. I find that illogical. I raised that question at an earlier stage and the Minister failed to comment on it. I have with me a photocopy of an article from the Daily Mail of 6 December 2005, which is quite interesting. Its opening lines said:"““A police force has banned its civilian bobbies from patrolling on specially-bought bicycles—because they haven’t got helmets.""Five months ago Enfield borough police invested in 12 bikes to help its Community Support Officers patrol parks.""But not one officer has used the cycles yet because the North London force will not risk sending them out on to the roads in case they have an accident””." I find it extremely odd that when a state-funded organisation insists on its adult officers being properly protected when cycling on the road, the Minister opposes the same level of protection for children who are likely to be much more vulnerable due to their age and inexperience. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will look more kindly on the amendment at this stage. I beg to move.